A Response-based Approach to the Literary Experience

“However, research indicates that literature is usually taught and tested in a nonliterary
manner, as if there is one right answer arrived at through point-of-reference reading or writing.
Arthur Applebee's Literature Center study of English classes across the United States (1993)
indicates that literature is often taught as if there is a point or predetermined interpretation the
reader must build toward, or as a literal reworking of the plot line from start to finish -- with no
room for the students' explorations to be sanctioned or to take form.” (pg. 4)
— — > This is the definition of my schooling experience. When reading literature of any kind there was always a “right answer” that had to be reached. I can remember peer editing papers in English class and essentially reading the same paper over and over again, because the ideas and “answers” were all the same. How is it that the same conclusion could be reached by 25 different people? We have all had different life experiences, so shouldn’t our conclusions be somewhat different? Maybe, but because of how the class was structured and taught, we all somehow came to the exact same conclusion, and if by chance someone came up with something different, there was always more proof and evidence to support the “mass” conclusion, thus silencing any other ideas or thoughts. This is so sad to me too! Our teachers should have been encouraging us to think outside the box instead of just allowing us to give them stock answers that could be found on SparkNotes or CliffNotes.  

“They felt lesson plans required them to become text-based, determining the scope and
sequence of activities and ideas within a particular lesson or unit in advance. Thus, when their
students responded in ways they didn't expect, the teachers felt torn -- as if departing from the
plan involved digressing rather than engaging in good instruction.” (pg 5)
— — > True, I don’t have a lot of experience with planning lessons and using lesson plans to teach a class, but this is honestly what freaks me out most about using a lesson plan. I hate the feeling that I have to stick to a plan when teaching and feel like I would be more comfortable just using an outline and being able to change and adapt as the class’ thinking moves. I get the point of a lesson plan, to have a map as a guideline for your teaching - what you teach, when you teach it, how you teach it, and I also appreciate taking the time to look at everything in detail and decide what will work best for your class and so on and so forth, but it seems a little futile if we are just going to make an “on the cuff” decision to change based on our students’ thinking. Why the importance of such a detailed lesson plan??

“7. Remember that questioning, probing, and leaving room for future possible
interpretations is at the heart of critical thinking in literature. Teachers as well as
students need to be open to possible meanings; in literary experiences there are
no preconceived ends or final inviolable interpretations.” (pg. 7)
— — > I think this, above all, is what we need to focus on and remember. Sure there are times when a “right answer” is okay and even necessary, but let us not forget the importance of thinking outside the box, being open the new ideas, and possibly changing our thinking completely. 

After reading this article, it makes the last article we read on using conversation in the classroom all that more important. We have to create an environment where students feel safe, comfortable, and at ease to explore new ideas and possibilities, to be able to share with one another what they think and to listen just the same to their peers. We as teachers need to facilitate this, but not get in the way as “information givers”.